TSBC Meeting Minutes – 8/10/2020

8/10/2020
Tisbury School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes

2020-08-10_TSBC_MeetingMinutes

 

---

Tisbury School Building Committee 2019-2020
5:00PM, Monday, August 10, 2020
by Zoom Cloud Conference due to Covid-19 Restrictions

TSBC Members Present:
Chair Harold Chapdelaine, Sean DeBettencourt, Peter Gearhart, Rita Jeffers, Reade Milne, Rachel Orr, Jim Rogers, Sean DeBettencourt, Rita Jeffers, Michael Watts

Others:
Angie Francis, Janet Packer
MVC: Dan Doyle, Recorder –Marni Lipke
Daedalus Projects: Richard Marks, Christina Opper, Amanda Sawyer
Tappé Architects: Chris Blessen
Schools: Sean DeBettencourt, Rita Jeffers, Nevette Previd
PTO: Siobhan Mullin, TSC – Michael Watts,
Town: Selectman – Jim Rogers, Town Administrator – Jay Grande
FinCom: Mary Ellen Larsen, Sarah York
Planning Board: Cheryl Doble, Ben Robinson
Recreation: Carolyn Wallis
Press: Louisa Hufstader – Vineyard Gazette

* TSBC members late arrivals or early departures.

1. Call To Order
The Tisbury School Building Committee 2019-2020 (TSBC) meeting was called to order at 5:06PM.
– (Recorder’s note: Discussions are summarized and grouped for clarity and brevity.)

2. Virtual Meeting Reminders (Mute, Video, Raising Hands)
Chair Harold Chapdelaine reviewed the protocol for remote meetings. The meeting was being recorded and would be posted with all background documents on the Project website http://www.tisbury-school-project.com. All participants were welcome. In order to facilitate Zoom technology he asked that:
– everyone mute their microphones to reduce background noise, – non-TSBC members turn off their video to allow TSBC members to be more easily identified.

3. Tisbury School Building Committee (TSBC) Attendance
Attendance was called. Principal John Custer and Tisbury School Committee (TSC) representative Mr. Michael Watts were attending another school meeting. Although this meeting was legally posted, due to a technical oversight involving the change in Chairs, it failed to appear on the Town website and consequently those requesting email alerts were not notified. Mr. Chapdelaine would be mindful of future postings.

5. Zoom Platform, Review of the ‘Chat’ Feature by Participants
Utilization of the ‘chat’ feature during meetings was proving to be problematic so the TSBC agreed to discontinue it. The public was requested to raise their hand during public comment periods or send an email to the project website for better archiving and response.

6. Acknowledgment of Receipt of Public Correspondence
No correspondence was received for this meeting. Responses were sent to the July 27th meeting correspondents.

7. Review of Concept Option 3: Gymnasium and Adjacent Spaces
(See documents on file & 5/11/20 Minutes p.2 #5 a & below: Actions.)

a. Building Committee Discussion
• The components and impacts of sinking the gym to the level of the parking lot were reviewed as a driving factor in Option 3. The subject was explored in response to community feedback on preservation of the current gym.
– The TSBC previously voted to move forward with Option 3 (see 6/29/20 Minutes p.6-7 #5&6) which authorized engineering and design progress. To change at this point would require such work be stopped, involving further cost and delay. (Option 3 also preserved playing field space and more thoroughly addressed staff and educational concerns: administrative offices, flex spaces, pedestrian flow, etc.) The TSBC repeated their commitment to reducing cost and present the best possible Option 3 design.
– Option 3 also moved the facility substantially to net zero energy consumption.
– The foremost purpose of the gym space was educational but it served a dual purpose as the community’s primary meeting, event and emergency shelter space. As such, accessibility to all citizens was a priority, particularly in comparison with the current steep entrance and stairs.
– The alternative (less expensive) Option 1 also included a new gym but in a less accessible location. Renovation of the current gym involved complications in: size, regulatory codes, and structural problems, such that there was diminishing return on savings. Gym space was one of the least costly per square foot.
– However cost remained a large obstacle. It was becoming increasingly clear that this was the range of cost for a a renovation/addition facility that complied with the Education Plan—as the TSBC was charged—whether the gym was sunken or renovated or new. If the TSBC charge was to deliver a cost driven concept, the current TSBC should disband and a completely different conversation had to take place.
– THEREFORE THE COMMITTEE STRONGLY ENDORSED THE SUNKEN GYM AND WOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MAKING OPTION 3 THE BEST POSSIBLE DESIGN.
• The standard Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) basketball court and/or physical education (PhysEd) class recommendation was 74 ft. by 50 ft. which, had been shaved down for this option to 74 ft. by 42 ft. with end and 10 ft. perimeter safety measures for run off. Mr. Chris Blessen of Tappé Architects was not comfortable with anything smaller. Others noted a 21st Century gym was important and there might be liability issues to a deliberately undersized gym.
– Only the gym had been reduced, otherwise the facility matched the Building Space Inventory needs (see 4/29/20 Minutes p.4)
• There were some reservations on the North side elevation and the impact of the hill on the design. Several members objected to the round glass entrance,
suggesting instead a more traditional, modest and less costly entrance.
• The angle of the gym matched the street and posed a visual separation with the original building but could be shifted (although without any particular cost
savings) to relieve some awkward angles.
• There was considerable debate on the stage orientation and configuration, particularly in relation to being at a 90º angle to the bleachers.
– The new bleacher capacity was 280 people. The current bleachers were unusable during a game because the safety margins were too narrow.
– If students no longer had to change for PhysEd, the changing rooms could be re-purposed and the stage shifted to face the bleachers. However, this would require the music and band rooms (currently designed in the most efficient location) be moved, involving a number of factors:
º practice schedule was presently: band and orchestra early morning and jazz band evening, sometimes at the High School;
º loss of immediate stage adjacency and complex relocation issues, e.g. adjacent or split from other Music Department classrooms;
º instrument storage needs.
– The stage could be deleted in favor of a portable or temporary stage, often used in Charter Schools. However this would mean the gym would become temporarily unavailable for sports/PhysEd and would also involve set-up takedown labor time/personnel.
– The TSBC was not in favor of eliminating the stage entirely.
– The stage was designed as a platform, but with all stage equipment—a minor regulatory distinction that considerably reduced expenses.
– Tisbury School teacher Ms. Rita Jeffers pointed out that the bleachers were well positioned to watch sporting events, and that this gym afforded more space for
chair set up, which most adults and students preferred when facing the stage — although others pointed out the younger children needed to be higher to see.
– Portable modular bleachers nested on the west side of the gym were also being explored.

b. Public Comment
• Ms. Sarah York of the Finance Committee (FinCom) asked if the debate was over cost or not knowing how to move forward, and emphasized the priority for student needs, including in the gym design.
• Ms. Angie Fisher supported lowering the gym and Option 3 as a worthwhile project although there were some fundamental flaws. Staff would adjust to the new situation, as all new situations required.
• FinCom member Ms. Mary Ellen Larsen reported that eliminating the current gym was not popular but that making a gym handicapped accessible was a priority. She preferred that the stage face the bleachers. She acknowledged that taxpayers would have to come to terms with the price which was high but reflected the reality of the situation.

8. Discussion of Topics for Future Meetings

9. Review of August Meeting Schedule And Sustainability Meeting(s)
• Future meeting time might be adjusted to avoid conflicts with other school meetings.
• A sustainability forum/meeting was scheduled for August 20th or August 27th. There would be four 10 minute presentations leaving plenty of time for discussion and questions.

4. Review and Possible Approval of Minutes, July 27, 2020 Meeting
• ON A MOTION DULY MADE BY MR. JIM ROGERS AND SECONDED BY MS. READE MILNE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 27, 2020 MEETING WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED FOR SPELLING: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: 7 AYES, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTENTIONS: MR. CHAPDELAINE —AYE, MR. SEAN DEBETTENCOURT—AYE, MR. PETER GEARHART—
AYE, MS. JEFFERS—AYE, MS. MILNE—AYE, MS. RACHEL ORR—AYE, MR. ROGERS—AYE.

10. Other Topics Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair Within 48 Hours of the Meeting
The TSBC reviewed the policy on individual TSBC members contacting the Owners Project Manager (OPM) or designers with questions or comments.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE TISBURY SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE THAT MEMBERS COULD CONTACT DAEDALUS OR TAPPÉ WITH QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE MEETINGS AND FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS. DAEDALUS AND TAPPÉ WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING IF A CONVERSATION WAS APPROPRIATE OR SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN THE FULL TSBC MEETING.

Adjournment
• ON A MOTION DULY MADE BY MR. ROGERS AND SECONDED BY MS. ORR THE TISBURY SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED AT 7:03PM: 7 AYES, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTENTIONS: MR. CHAPDELAINE—AYE, MR. DEBETTENCOURT—AYE, MR. GEARHART—AYE, MS. JEFFERS—AYE, MS. MILNE—AYE, MS. ORR—
AYE, MR. ROGERS—AYE.

Appendix A: Meetings/Events:
• TSBC – 7:00PM, Monday, August 17, 2020 – Zoom
• Sustainability Forum – TBD – 5:00PM, Thursday, August 20 (27), 2020 – Zoom
• TSBC – TBD – 5:00PM, Mondays, August 24, 31, 2020 – Zoom

Appendix B: Actions
Mr. Marks – check to insure Option 3 fulfills building space inventory.
Mr. Blessen – report on how hill impacts design.
Mr. Blessen – draft other stage/bleacher scenarios.
Mr. Blessen – overlay existing gym size & location on this proposal.
Mr. Blessen – include more dimensions in draft drawings.
Prin. Custer/Ms. Jeffers/Mr. DeBettencourt – report staff feedback on Music Dept. adjacencies.
Prin. Custer/Mr. Blessen – report current bleacher capacity.
Prin. Custer/Mr. Blessen – can changing rooms be repurposed?

Appendix C: Documents on File: Available at :
http://www.tisbury.mvyps.org / click on Tisbury School Project
(Official archive hard copies on file at Tisbury Town Hall & Tisbury School):
• Agenda 8/10/20
• gym plan in progress 8/10/20

Minutes respectfully submitted by Office On Call/Marni Lipke.
Marni Lipke – Recorder
Harold Chapdelaine – TSBC Chair
Minutes approved as amended 8/17/20